Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn’t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. They want to control how we dress. They want to control how we act. They even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies.

I really did not want to write this post. I’ve been mentally resisting doing so for days. I wanted to talk about what a blowhard Rush Limbaugh is and be done with it. I want to quit worrying about things like women’s rights — which should not even be up for debate — and move on to more important things, like the economy and education and affordable health care and what I’m making for dinner.

But when Hillary Clinton recently had to say those words above in reference to the events happening now, in the good ol’ US of A, I figure that unfortunately, these current attacks on women aren’t something we can brush aside.

Here are just a few examples of how politicians are trying to whittle away at women’s rights:

I’m not quite sure how we’ve gotten to this place. Perhaps even in the 21st century, there are still men who get scared by the idea of women having any sort of power or control. And I have a feeling the Tea Party movement has probably emboldened some politicians, offering to support them if they cater to the fringe. Just like most liberals don’t want abortions to be free and easy and available to any woman who changes her mind in the eighth month, most conservatives don’t want women with severely deformed fetuses that have no chance of survival to have to undergo unnecessary medical procedures and public shamings.

Because from what I gather in talking with my female friends of all political persuasions, we’re not extremists on these issues. While we do differ on the details, most of us are pretty horrified that male politicians are trying to tell us what we can or can’t do with our bodies. And we’re shocked that the sacred doctor/patient relationship (one that is particularly intimate for women) is being destroyed.

But is this really going to backfire for the Republican party? There is much speculation that this current obsession with women’s reproductive rights is going to drive female voters to the Democratic side. I’m not so sure. Although my feminine identity is one of the reasons I vote Democratic, I know that it is only one part of my political identity.

Last week, BabyCenter member upnorthgal posted an excellent poll over in The Debate Team group. She asked conservative and moderate women the question “What do you think of laws that place conditions on reproductive health care?” The resulting conversation has been lively, intelligent and thought-provoking. I highly suggest you check it out.

While everyone is entitled to her opinion, I think there are some facts that are not in dispute these days. Lawmakers are actively working to change the shape of women’s rights. Women are concerned about the future of their medical care. And many women are being forced to make a hard decision between their gender and their political affiliation.

I’ll close with another quote from another powerful female Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright:

There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women.

Recent posts

@Kerri#33. Do you know what the percentage of women in congress is? It is not comparable to the percentage of women in the country (not even close) and it is reducing over time not increasing. Even if every woman in congress wanted to vote against these issues there would not be enough votes to make a difference. This is also very sad to me.

Tyz

The part that really gets me is that most of the conservative politicians fanning the flames of this war don’t really give a crap about abortion and birth control (and gay marriage and whatever other topics are sure to get a reaction on Fox News). They just know that bringing it up will rile up their conservative base and get them angry enough to vote against the rival candidate, no matter how qualified that candidate is otherwise. It’s practically pavlovian. How many times do you have to read about a supposed “family values candidate” (maude, I hate the use of that term to describe their sh*t-stirring tactics) who cheated on his wife with men, or got his intern pregnant, or had a constant string of hookers to service him whenever he wished? And those are just the ones that got caught. How many more have paid for their intern’s abortion or didn’t get them pregnant in the first place because they *gasp* used birth control?

And yes, of course there are many, MANY middle-to-left leaning politicians that have done the same. But the difference is that they don’t rile up their base using “family values” buzzwords.

I’m sick and tired of genitals being the only topic of discussion during an election, especially when I know the topic is just being used to manipulate the discussion away from the real issues we face as a nation.

Even worse is that old tactics aren’t working as well as they use to work. So now they’re ratcheting up the rhetoric. Things that used to have bipartisan support are now part of the “debate” for no other reason than they need more gasoline to pour on the fire.

Julius

Natasha, we all have protection under the law against vilolence. Did assault become legal overnight? I don’t get what you are saying.

BabyJsMommy

You are very misleading with your linked headlines. And the links you included are very misleading with theirs.

The Violence Against Women Act WAS supported by both parties since the 90s in its original form, the controversy over the renewal is because Democratic senators ALTERED the content to substantially increase funding (which is not sustainable) to include two additions that Republicans would not vote for: a huge increase in federal spending (READ: your taxpayer dollars) to give temporary visas to illegal immigrant women to remain in America for abortions, contraception, and domestic violence counseling (there IS a refugee and asylum immigration process for this ALREADY—in 2009 alone, 22,930 people LEGALLY won asylum through this process, fleeing all types of persecution, and persecution extends to battered and abused (raped) women and children.) The second increase in spending was to cover Native American women’s abortions, contraception, and domestic violence counseling. However, a federal fund is already set up within The Bureau of Indian Affairs that has been responsible for providing federal funding to Native American reservations for over a century. This includes support for domestic violence and health care for Native Americans.

The Kansas bill you mention wasn’t explained very well in the article you linked, I had to do some digging. House Bill 2598, called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” is meant to cut off state funding and tax cuts for abortions and abortion training in state-run hospital training facilities and state run clinics. This DOES NOT include private clinics and federal clinics; federal money would still go to organizations like Planned Parenthood etc. to continue their services to women, it’s just on the state level that money would not fund abortions. I can’t find the “provision” or “clause” from the bill that mentions limiting legal action women can take if doctors do not disclose fetal abnormalities. Can you show me a link where I could look up the wording of that clause in the bill?

The Tennessee bill that you said would “allow for the publishing of identifying details about women who receive abortions,” is at best deliberately deceptive and at worst an outright lie. The article states that Tennessee would “require the state to publish the names of each doctor who performs an abortion and detailed statistics about the woman having the procedure.” The statistics may include your average age (like 18-25), your ethnicity, income, previous pregnancies, etc. Statistics like this are gathered all the time and do not identify a person or release their medical record. It’s within public databases already to name which doctors perform abortions in the same way you can look up fertility specialists.

The Texas anti-abortion bill, “that mandates women must undergo certain medical procedures. Procedures that are, to put it nicely, invasive.” is also misleading. Women who want an abortion in Texas must have an ultrasound done, hear baby’s heartbeat, and wait 24 hours before the abortion is performed. They can choose not to see the ultrasound, as stated plainly in the bill. They do not have to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound, and they can have a regular sonogram. Women are exempt from these previously-stated steps except for the doctor consult and 24 hour waiting period if they are victims of rape, incest, or have a fetus with severe abnormalities.

Arizona House Bill 2625 states that businesses who have a religious opposition to paying for abortificants and birth control to prevent pregnancy can choose NOT TO PAY for their employee’s birth control. They cannot fire them for using birth control, the employee can get supplemental insurance to pay for it or pay out of pocket. The businesses are still required by state law to provide health insurance for everything else that’s required. You can also CHOOSE not to work at a particular business if you don’t like their health care plan. You wrote, “Because we’ll need to get a permission slip from our bosses to get birth control, and if we don’t, we can be fired.”

Did you even read the articles you linked or did you just skim the headlines? You are being purposefully misleading to incite responses, and it’s really poor blogging and poor journalism.

And for the record, Republicans are not always conservative. I’m a conservative, Christian woman, and I value women’s rights to the extent that they are not treading upon the rights of others, like unborn children. I would never expect my employer to pay for my birth control because 1. It’s my choice, and 2. It’s my responsibility to be aware of and respond to my fertility. Forcing an employer to pay for your birth control impedes on their freedoms if they have a moral opposition to birth control. This by the way, seems to only be affecting Catholic organizations nationwide.

Finally, I’ve lived overseas for years in developing countries, and I think it’s disgusting that ANY American would describe what is happening in politics and American women as a “War on Women.” We have more freedoms as American women that many of the women in the entire world. This type of hyperbole insults the women who are being stoned to death for being raped in Afghanistan and Iran, who are being forced into prostitution in Thailand, Cambodia, and India, who are being gang-raped and beaten to death in the Congo, and the Sudan. These are places and people who have made war on women. We are just debating about who should pay for our b/c and how much information is legally appropriate and legally obtainable to have before a woman decides to abort her child.

Amy Bradley-Hole

I’m super busy today, so I apologize that I can’t address all your concerns right now. But I can make a start.

The Tennessee bil’s statistics can absolutely identify a patient, especially in rural areas with a low population. In the small town where I grew up, knowing a person’s age, race, number of previous pregnancies, zip code and income is enough to narrow it down to just a handful of people. If that kind of information were collected on men who had erectile dysfunction, this would never stand.

I knew where it was because I’ve read almost every word of it. On the surface it sounds OK, but there’s so much bad stuff in there, (including downright lies) it’s heartbreaking.

I’ve also read every word of the articles I’ve linked to, and many other ones on the same subjects.

Sorry I don’t have time to provide more links right now.

Lastly, women’s rights aren’t a pity olympics. It is not a competition to see who’s being hurt the most. Would you tell an American rape victim or a woman with a severely deformed fetus “Sorry you have to pay a tax on that abortion, but really, what are you complaining about, because in some countries, your dad could also stone you for this!”

Julius

BabyJmommy, I hope you continue to post here. I really enjoy your perspective and analysis here.

Brad

“for some reason, they’re more worried about our wombs. And unfortunately, if they succeed in taking away our right to make our own medical decisions”.

Amy, first you need to start being more honest with yourself and your readers. Americans who are pro-life and pro-children could care less about your “womb”. “Wombs” aren’t being aborted. It’s “babies” that are being destroyed. We care about that person in your womb. We’re trying to protect them from people like you.

Also, enough about “medical decisions”. Call it what it is. A decision to eliminate another human life without them being able to defend themselves. 99% of the time it’s not a health issue. Obviously you just view people, babies, and the unborn as objects and nothing else.

Brad

5.Natasha says:
March 23, 2012 at 5:35 am
Brad: 50% of my uterus is not yours. It is mine. All mine. Is 50% of your penis mine? Fine-I want it to get a vacectomy. What, you don’t want to? Tough sh*t!
I am seriously fearful for the future of my daughters. What if she wants to get her masters before she gets pregnant? She’ll have to PROVE she needs BC to her employer? How WRONG is that?? What if one of them decides being a lesbian is what makes her happy? She won’t have rights againts violence??? Gah makes me sick! Maybe we should start imposing some of these laws on men!!!!

Natasha nice try twisting what i said. Here’s the quote “50% of that PERSON in your womb is mine too”. …You can have 100% of your uterous. Yes, 50% of that person is mine as a man. And I will fight to protect that person.

BabyJsMommy

You are very misleading with your headlines. And the links you included are very misleading with theirs.

The Violence Against Women Act WAS supported by both parties since the 90s in its original form, the controversy over the renewal is because Democratic senators ALTERED the content to substantially increase funding (which is not sustainable) to include two additions that Republicans would not vote for: a huge increase in federal spending (READ: your taxpayer dollars) to give temporary visas to illegal immigrant women to remain in America for abortions, contraception, and domestic violence counseling (there IS a refugee and asylum immigration process for this ALREADY—in 2009 alone, 22,930 people LEGALLY won asylum through this process, fleeing all types of persecution, and persecution extends to battered and abused [raped] women and children.) The second increase in spending was to cover Native American women’s abortions, contraception, and domestic violence counseling. However, a federal fund is already set up within The Bureau of Indian Affairs that has been responsible for providing federal funding to Native American reservations for over a century. This includes support for domestic violence and health care for Native Americans.

The Kansas bill you mention wasn’t explained very well in the article you linked, I had to do some digging. House Bill 2598, called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” is meant to cut off state funding and tax cuts for abortions and abortion training in state-run hospital training facilities and state run clinics. This DOES NOT include private clinics and federal clinics; federal money would still go to organizations like Planned Parenthood etc. to continue their services to women, it’s just on the state level that money would not fund abortions. I can’t find the “provision” or “clause” from the bill that mentions limiting legal action women can take if doctors do not disclose fetal abnormalities. Can you show me a link where I could look up the wording of that clause in the bill?

The Tennessee bill that you said would “allow for the publishing of identifying details about women who receive abortions,” is at best deliberately deceptive and at worst an outright lie. The article states that Tennessee would “require the state to publish the names of each doctor who performs an abortion and detailed statistics about the woman having the procedure.” The statistics may include your average age (like 18-25), your ethnicity, income, previous pregnancies, etc. Statistics like this are gathered all the time and do not identify a person or release their medical record. It’s within public databases already to name which doctors perform abortions in the same way you can look up fertility specialists.

The Texas anti-abortion bill, “that mandates women must undergo certain medical procedures. Procedures that are, to put it nicely, invasive.” is also misleading. Women who want an abortion in Texas must have an ultrasound done, hear baby’s heartbeat, and wait 24 hours before the abortion is performed. They can choose not to see the ultrasound, as stated plainly in the bill. They do not have to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound, and they can have a regular sonogram. Women are exempt from these previously-stated steps except for the doctor consult and 24 hour waiting period if they are victims of rape, incest, or have a fetus with severe abnormalities.

Arizona House Bill 2625 states that businesses who have a religious opposition to paying for abortificants and birth control to prevent pregnancy can choose NOT TO PAY for their employee’s birth control. They cannot fire them for using birth control, the employee can get supplemental insurance to pay for it or pay out of pocket. The businesses are still required by state law to provide health insurance for everything else that’s required. You can also CHOOSE not to work at a particular business if you don’t like their health care plan. You wrote, “Because we’ll need to get a permission slip from our bosses to get birth control, and if we don’t, we can be fired.”

Did you even read the articles you linked or did you just skim the headlines? You are being purposefully misleading to incite responses, and it’s really poor blogging and poor journalism.

And for the record, Republicans are not always conservative. I’m a conservative, Christian woman, and I value women’s rights to the extent that they are not treading upon the rights of others, like unborn children. I would never expect my employer to pay for my birth control because 1. It’s my choice, and 2. It’s my responsibility to be aware of and respond to my fertility. Forcing an employer to pay for your birth control impedes on their freedoms if they have a moral opposition to birth control. This by the way, seems to only be effecting Catholic organizations nationwide.

Finally, I’ve lived overseas in developing countries, and I think it’s disgusting that ANY American would describe what is happening in politics and American women as a “War on Women.” We have more freedoms as American women that most of the women in the entire world. This type of hyperbole insults the women who are being stoned to death for being raped in Afghanistan and Iran, who are being forced into prostitution in Thailand, Cambodia, and India, who are being beaten to death in the Congo, and the Sudan. These are places and people who have made war on women. We are just debating about who should pay for our b/c and how much information is legally appropriate and legally obtainable to have before a woman decides to abort her child.

BabyJsMommy

Whoops! Sorry for posting the same thing twice, something locked up on my computer. I use a VPN so I can blog from the “free” developing country where I am currently living.

Julius, thanks, I appreciate your thoughts as well.

Amy, thanks for the link to the Kansas bill and your other links. I’ll have to read it and get back to you.

And you are right, I would never talk to an American woman, or any woman who has been raped, like that… what you have created with your comment is what is called a “straw man argument”. Congrats, you burned it to the ground. I was merely offering a perspective that I think women in America miss completely…there is a lot about our lives we take for granted, like the government and private organizations paying partially or fully for our health care. The language we use to describe our struggles can demean others if we equate our issues with theirs.

Ms. K

Where are the women politicians at during these debates? And how to they feel about their rights being trampled on?

Personally I am sick of hearing about demarcates this and republicans that. Regardless of what party you belong to you are a WOMAN and WE need to stick together! You want the right to stand and protest my choices and I want the right to have a choice (whatever the topic may be)! It’s a right and no man should take that away from us!

WE ARE THE PARTY OF AND FOR WOMAN’S RIGHTS!

MathieMom

“If you are not a Feminist then you do not want women to have equality and that is sad.”

Sorry, Kip, but you’re 100% wrong on this. Lots of women want women to have equality (or rather equivalence) that don’t walk in lock-step with the Feminist party line. Disagreeing with NOW’s stand on a particular issue doesn’t mean you don’t want women to have rights and respect.

One of my “equal rights” as a woman is to make up my own mind and that’s not always going to agree 100% with every decision made by the Feminist “establishment”. I think that the comments here are a great indication that we’re still fighting the “feminist” battles of our mothers’ generation (1970 is 40 years ago, ladies!) rather than the current issues that affect today’s modern women. Are there still women’s rights issues? Of course there are, and they’re way more nuanced than just abortion.

When I see “femnists” spending less time on abortion (we’ve already got Roe vs. Wade, so move on) and more time on mother-friendly hospitals (33% of mothers give birth via c-section, despite the medical research that shows that even hospitals serving lots of high-risk moms/babies shouldn’t have over 15% c-section rate, and if the skyrocketing rate of maternal deaths in the U.S. doesn’t bother you, it should). There are already doctors who lie to patients about the health of their babies (scheduled c-sections and inductions are easier on doctors and hospitals, and natural labors do take a lot time, you know, but convinience is worth the extra expense and health risks to mother and baby for those OBs, I guess). If you think I’m making this up, check out this recent post in the BBC Community: http://community.babycenter.com/post/a32141963/frustrated_with_dr_insisting_on_induction.

We should spend more time on supporting working women who are desperately trying to feed their babies breastmilk (recommended by WHO and AAP) but have no accomodations at work and/or sufficient breaks (despite one of the only parts of ObamaCare that I really support, which require employers to give breastfeeding moms a non-bathroom space and time to pump).

But the old-school “femenists” are more concerned about a woman’s right to NOT have babies, they ignore the women’s rights issues surrounding the women that DO choose to have children, or even *gasp* have more than one child *shudder*. When “Femenists” start representing ALL women, instead of just those that fit in their feminist mold, then I’ll stop running away from the term “feminist”. For now, some of us women need to stand up for Mother’s Rights, because the Femenists are too busy fighting battles they’ve already won.

Why not just add a provision to the “doctors lying to you” law that requires the doctor advise patients (before consenting to any test which may prompt the doctor to not tell the patient the truth) that the doctor reserves the right to not disclose the results? That way the patient will know that they may not get an accurate answer to the test, which may make them think about what the results would mean for them. And if the results would make them rethink the pregnancy, then they would have an opportunity to find a doctor who supports informed decision making. Win-win.

Hot Topic

Note: This is a fun post spoofing a popular series on one of my favorite technology blogs. The boy scouts have a motto “always be prepared.” My son doesn’t know that because he is 3. But he does like to be prepared in case an adventure (or a 30-minute ride to his grandparents house) presents… Read more »